On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 1:22 AM, Vadim Zhukov persg...@gmail.com wrote:
You should type disable softraid after entering UKC using boot -c at
the bootloader prompt. More details on UKC you can find here:
no, he shouldn't because that's not the bug.
bofh wrote:
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Pierre Riteau pierre.rit...@gmail.com wrote:
Or learn to use ed :)
My god, ed? He should be editing the file on the hard drive by hand,
poking it in with dip switches!
so you've never had to edit text files with only programs under
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Hannah Schroeter han...@schlund.de wrote:
Hi!
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 02:39:18PM +0100, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 07:27:56AM -0600, Phusion wrote:
I am looking for advice on how to reset the root password on an
OpenBSD system that has
I am looking for advice on how to reset the root password on an
OpenBSD system that has console set to insecure in /etc/ttys. I have
booted off the install CD and into the shell and mounted the /
partition read-write, but don't have access to vi to modify
/etc/master.passwd. I was thinking I could
Hi!
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 07:27:56AM -0600, Phusion wrote:
I am looking for advice on how to reset the root password on an
OpenBSD system that has console set to insecure in /etc/ttys. I have
booted off the install CD and into the shell and mounted the /
partition read-write, but don't have
Hi!
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 02:39:18PM +0100, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 07:27:56AM -0600, Phusion wrote:
I am looking for advice on how to reset the root password on an
OpenBSD system that has console set to insecure in /etc/ttys. I have
booted off the install CD
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 02:44:49PM +0100, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
Hi!
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 02:39:18PM +0100, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 07:27:56AM -0600, Phusion wrote:
I am looking for advice on how to reset the root password on an
OpenBSD system that has console
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Pierre Riteau pierre.rit...@gmail.com wrote:
Or learn to use ed :)
My god, ed? He should be editing the file on the hard drive by hand,
poking it in with dip switches!
--
http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk
This
Or learn to use ed :)
My god, ed? He should be editing the file on the hard drive by hand,
poking it in with dip switches!
Dip switches? Back in my time, we had to use magnets. Kids are so
spoiled those days...
Grumpy
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Grumpy gru...@grumble-bubble.org wrote:
Or learn to use ed :)
My god, ed? He should be editing the file on the hard drive by hand,
poking it in with dip switches!
Dip switches? Back in my time, we had to use magnets. Kids are so
spoiled those days...
think that is best left as an exercise for the asker.
Here's what it boils down to:
There is nothing wrong with a properly implemented 'bash' or any
other shell for root. Hint: when the system comes up single user
mode, it will ASK you what shell to use. The statically compiled
part
On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 09:29:43AM -0500, Alfredo Perez wrote:
| Just add a few options to /etc/profile and it's like at home again.
|
| export HISTFILE=~/.sh_history
| export HISTSIZE=10
|
| export PS1='[EMAIL PROTECTED] \w \$ '
|
| Any suggestions? :)
|
| I would add set -o vi
2008/12/5 Paul de Weerd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 09:29:43AM -0500, Alfredo Perez wrote:
| Just add a few options to /etc/profile and it's like at home again.
|
| export HISTFILE=~/.sh_history
| export HISTSIZE=10
|
| export PS1='[EMAIL PROTECTED] \w \$ '
|
|
On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 04:24:39PM +0100, G??bri M??t?? wrote:
| If you prefer vi and want to use it for most everything, simply export
| VISUAL=vi. This has the same effect as set -o vi on your command line
| editor.
|
| What does it do if i set this variable?
According to the ksh manpage,
Dieter wrote:
Like many things in Unix, you are using power tools. If you change
root's shell, you need to know what you are doing. Remember that
you might find yourself in single user mode with nothing but the
root partition mounted. Hence my comment previously about having
a statically
OpenBSD prompts you for a shell name when booting into single-user mode.
There's no need for precautions when using a dynamically-linked shell, as
you can always just type /bin/sh when you need to boot into single-user
mode and find yourself without your precious libraries.
Good luck doing it
it boils down to:
There is nothing wrong with a properly implemented 'bash' or any
other shell for root. Hint: when the system comes up single user
mode, it will ASK you what shell to use. The statically compiled
part isn't even critical in OpenBSD, unless you are intent on
running bash
, and for a few years on FreeBSD. Zero problems.
Before that I used ksh (the original ksh), and I recall discussions
back in the 1980s about using ksh for root. I think some people
even installed it as /bin/sh.
If you write shell scripts that depend on being run by a specific
shell, you are supposed
2008/12/2 Christopher Linn [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
$ sudo su -
Make that
$ sudo -s
Best
Martin
Dieter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
more than 13 years
[...]
If you write shell scripts that depend on being run by a specific
shell, you are supposed to use the #! thing.
Yes, you are great. You've never made any mistake in more than 13 years.
Us mere mortals prefer to avoid the risk of making
back in the
day. But ksh works pretty much just like BASH, so I just don't
get this. Is this just minor growing pains of someone coming
over from linux?
This is one of those threads that doesn't want to end and I'm
helping it stay alive.
The default ksh works great for root. I mean how much time
.
The default ksh works great for root. I mean how much time do you spend
logged in as root anyway? Use root for emergencies,
not for something you spend your day in.
FWIW, if you want a kitchen sink shell try zsh.
Yup, that's what I'm gonna do. Not for root though.
/juan
not want
'root' on your box, maybe I just want to see the data of the payroll
dept., or your personal e-mail, or similar), you won't notice that,
either.
Non-trivial additional risk so you don't have to manually invoke a shell
you don't even need to use. I think this falls quite safely under bad
Martin Schrvder wrote:
2008/12/2 Christopher Linn [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
$ sudo su -
Make that
$ sudo -s
Best
Martin
amazing how annoying two words can be.
By saying make that, you are saying someone else was wrong, and this
is correct.
For many purposes, sudo su - and sudo -s are
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 12:21:28PM -0500, Nick Holland wrote:
Martin Schrvder wrote:
2008/12/2 Christopher Linn [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
$ sudo su -
Make that
$ sudo -s
Best
Martin
amazing how annoying two words can be.
By saying make that, you are saying someone else was wrong,
.
To give you more background about my use case, if you really want to
know: I need not only a custom shell but a custom home directory. I
ssh -X in to the remote host and run a program as root, and this
program displays a window on my local X server. Therefore the program
needs to create a $HOME
forgot the 'root' password
when you need it and being a really silly way to solve a completely
non-problem? No reason at all.
Just sudo when you need to be root -- avoids ever logging in as root
unless something's *REALLY* wrong. You can keep your shell (or better
yet, just run the command
the real root environment pristine.
Other than generating duplicate user number error reports from the nightly
security check, the generally bad idea of duplicate user numbers, creating
confusion and ambiguity that doesn't need to be there, the likelihood that
you will have forgot the 'root
Juan Miscaro wrote:
I turn off those annoying checks and I use the same password.
Works great.
/juan
... until it doesn't.
2008/12/2 Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Juan Miscaro wrote:
I turn off those annoying checks and I use the same password.
Works great.
/juan
... until it doesn't.
Got anything to back that up?
/juan
as the shell, but not in wheel group and the only users he
could use for wheel were setup for bash and that was screw up. So, he
had access to the server, but couldn't get access to root in anyway as
it was bash for root and he just had to drive there to fix it. He forget
that bash wasn't compile
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 08:46:00AM +, Dieter wrote:
What is wrong with bash as shell for root?
(Assuming bash is in /bin and statically linked.)
all talk of why or why not misses one highly held best practice
for system management, no matter what the OS.
never change the default root
2008/12/2 Daniel Ouellet [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Juan Miscaro wrote:
2008/12/2 Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Juan Miscaro wrote:
I turn off those annoying checks and I use the same password.
Works great.
/juan
... until it doesn't.
Got anything to back that up?
I remember one
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Juan Miscaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Install bash statically linked. That's all.
Never make a mistake. That's all.
Really? I mean really are we going to put this to bed yet? Cause I am bored
to tears seeing new replies to something so trivial! Next real diagnostic
issue please.
-Jim
has aluded to:
no two shells are exactly alike and sooner or later a script written
for one will blow-up in another. And since OpenBSD comes with and
reasonably assumes that /bin/sh is the Korn Shell, all system (i.e.
root) scripts are written accordingly. The converse is also a likely
problem
are missing a very important point that Chris Linn has aluded to:
no two shells are exactly alike and sooner or later a script written
for one will blow-up in another. And since OpenBSD comes with and
reasonably assumes that /bin/sh is the Korn Shell, all system (i.e.
root) scripts are written
Nick Holland wrote:
the generally bad idea of duplicate user numbers
I am not aware that this is considered a bad idea to have two
usernames for the same UID. It is a pretty established practice to
add a so-called toor username for exactly the reason of getting a
nice superuser shell. I have
--- On Tue, 12/2/08, Ted Unangst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Install bash statically linked. That's all.
Never make a mistake. That's all.
Exactly. I don't get this thread. I mean, I could understand BASH as an
option when openBSD was moving off of csh back in the day. But ksh works
it boils down to:
There is nothing wrong with a properly implemented 'bash' or any
other shell for root. Hint: when the system comes up single user
mode, it will ASK you what shell to use. The statically compiled
part isn't even critical in OpenBSD, unless you are intent on
running bash in single
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 11:11:53AM -0500, Nick Holland wrote:
need or want to use bash on OpenBSD. The only good reason I've
found to use bash on OpenBSD is to make it feel like some other OS,
Another reason I've found is the option set -o pipefail, which is
handy when you want the ERR trap
Juan Miscaro wrote:
...
Why not set up a user (ex: bigguy) and then force his uid and gid to
be 0 and 0 with vipw? Give that user a nice coloured bash prompt and
set up directories in his home. This way you get a customized
superuser while keeping the real root environment pristine.
Other
Hi Guys,
Thanks a lot for all replies and discussion, I have recovered root shell today
after scheduling down time. Thanks a lot, excellent forum
Thanks,
Farhan
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 07:55:48 -0500
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: misc@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: bash for root?
Juan Miscaro
Dieter wrote:
2. don't use bash as shell for root.
Or at least understand what you are doing.
What is wrong with bash as shell for root?
(Assuming bash is in /bin and statically linked.)
There's nothing wrong with that if you make it statically linked and put
it in /bin
with a properly implemented 'bash' or any
other shell for root. Hint: when the system comes up single user
mode, it will ASK you what shell to use. The statically compiled
part isn't even critical in OpenBSD, unless you are intent on
running bash in single-user mode before all partitions are mounted
2. don't use bash as shell for root.
Or at least understand what you are doing.
What is wrong with bash as shell for root?
(Assuming bash is in /bin and statically linked.)
Question is how can you make shell statically linked? I thought when you
install package it should be linked rather than manual compiling and
installing
--
Regards,
Farhan Ahmed To: misc@openbsd.org Subject: bash for root? (was: Re: libiconv
problem ) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 08:46:00 + From
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 07:39:37PM +0100, vincent wrote:
Following this old thread (Feb 08)
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=120345491121853w=2 ,
I'm wondering what's the status of booting with root filesystem in
softraid in 4.4 or in -current. It was said by Marco Peereboom in the
same
Following this old thread (Feb 08)
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=120345491121853w=2 ,
I'm wondering what's the status of booting with root filesystem in
softraid in 4.4 or in -current. It was said by Marco Peereboom in the
same thread that this was planned.
I wanted to test new softraid
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 07:39:37PM +0100, vincent wrote:
Following this old thread (Feb 08)
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=120345491121853w=2 ,
I'm wondering what's the status of booting with root filesystem in
softraid in 4.4 or in -current. It was said by Marco Peereboom in the
same
=openbsd-miscm=120345491121853w=2 ,
I'm wondering what's the status of booting with root filesystem in
softraid in 4.4 or in -current. It was said by Marco Peereboom in the
same thread that this was planned.
And it is still planned. The folks involved have that thing called life
in the way.
I
On 2008-11-23, bofh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is this life thing? Is it part of base.tgz? It sounds as if
some of us may not have it, so maybe it is in ports?
of course; it's in /usr/ports/games.
And it is still planned. The folks involved have that thing called life
in the way.
What is this life thing? Is it part of base.tgz? It sounds as if
some of us may not have it, so maybe it is in ports?
Life is a program that simulates cells/organisms multiplying and dying.
The patterns
.
Regards
-Message d'origine-
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
De la part de Christophe Rioux
Envoyi : vendredi 10 octobre 2008 17:15
@ : misc@openbsd.org
Objet : Re: root acount unable to mail gmail.com - vers. 4.3
HI
I have more or less the same issue. I try to send
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de
Jesus Sanchez
Envoyi : vendredi 10 octobre 2008 19:47
@ : misc@openbsd.org
Objet : Re: root acount unable to mail gmail.com - vers. 4.3
Christophe Rioux escribis:
HI
I have more or less the same issue. I try to send a monitoring mail
via root, and if I do
On 2008-10-10, Jesus Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- hostname zexel.es (it's not true I own that domain, but needed)
it doesn't even exist, many mail hosts won't accept mail from
there at all. i'm quite surprised gmail does...
user, mail goes to the account but if I login as root and
then send a mail to a wellknown gmail.com account (this acount,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], for example) mail never comes. This is a gmail.com
problem?
didn't found anything about restrictions on root acount and sendmail.
I had trouble sending
HI
I have more or less the same issue. I try to send a monitoring mail via
root, and if I do a tcpdump I see:
pass out on em2: public_ip.17782 127.0.0.1.25:
What means, the firewall try to send a mail to outside.
I try the same thing with the command:
mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
subject: toto
Christophe Rioux escribis:
HI
I have more or less the same issue. I try to send a monitoring mail via
root, and if I do a tcpdump I see:
pass out on em2: public_ip.17782 127.0.0.1.25:
pf activated? it may be a rule. Try looking your pf.conf
What means, the firewall try to send a mail
Hi, using a clean install of OpenBSD 4.3, after doing some changes, the
/etc/rc.conf sendmail_flags uses /etc/mail/sendmail.cf as config file.
popa3d runs OK and network also, but I have a problem. When I send mail
as a regular user, mail goes to the account but if I login as root and
then send
as a regular user, mail goes to the account but if I login as root and
then send a mail to a wellknown gmail.com account (this acount,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], for example) mail never comes. This is a gmail.com
problem?
didn't found anything about restrictions on root acount and sendmail.
How are you
as a regular user, mail goes to the account but if I login as root and
then send a mail to a wellknown gmail.com account (this acount,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], for example) mail never comes. This is a gmail.com
problem?
does mail sent as root arrive anywhere else? is there anything in the
logs
i can send mail from root to my gmail. check your mail logs and mail queue.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Jesus Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, using a clean install of OpenBSD 4.3, after doing some changes, the
/etc/rc.conf sendmail_flags uses /etc/mail/sendmail.cf as config file
.
- create a user zexel
- log as zexel
- mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (this acount) and the mail arrives.
- log again as root
- mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] mail don't arrives.
- /var/spool/mqueue is empty
- this is the really dirty /var/log/maillog I got after
some mails:
/var/log/maillog
that domain, but needed)
- edit /etc/hosts adding a line 127.0.0.1 zexel.es
- mail to my self ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) to try, it works.
- create a user zexel
- log as zexel
- mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (this acount) and the mail arrives.
- log again as root
- mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] mail don't arrives.
- /var
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
Josh Grosse
Have you tried boot -a to see if you can select raid0a?
It's not clear if you're back on the original 4.3 RAIDframe kernel or
not;
if not, you need *both* of these lines in your kernel
Greetings,
I pooched an attempted upgrade of a 4.3 box to 4.4 which I remembered
was running the modified RAIDFrame kernel after installing the -release
kernel and rebooting -- whoops. I managed to recover the box, but it
won't mount the raid0a slice on root. I resurrected the raid0 slice
, but it
won't mount the raid0a slice on root. I resurrected the raid0 slice,
reran 'raidctl -A root raid0' and rebooted, but when the system tries to
mount /dev/raid0a on root it says 'invalid argument'. I'm currently
running with / mounted off wd0a (which is why the raidctl -vs below
shows Root
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 12:33:54AM +0200, Jesus Sanchez wrote:
Hi, using 4.2.
Just for curiosity...
Can I make ls to NOT show
the hidden files (.xinitrc , .vimrc, etc) when
using as Root??
Thanks 4 all.
Why is this a problem ?
When you're root, you really want to see all the files
Hi, using 4.2.
Just for curiosity...
Can I make ls to NOT show
the hidden files (.xinitrc , .vimrc, etc) when
using as Root??
Thanks 4 all.
On 7/28/08, Jesus Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can I make ls to NOT show
the hidden files (.xinitrc , .vimrc, etc) when
using as Root??
ls *
ls | grep -v ^.
sudo -u nobody ls
find . -name [abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ]*
-maxdepth 1 -print0 | xargs -0 ls -Cd | sed
man ls shows -A option is implicit when using as root. So in short it
would be no.
On Jul 28, 2008, at 3:33 PM, Jesus Sanchez wrote:
Hi, using 4.2.
Just for curiosity...
Can I make ls to NOT show
the hidden files (.xinitrc , .vimrc, etc) when
using as Root??
Thanks 4 all.
Ted Unangst escribis:
On 7/28/08, Jesus Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can I make ls to NOT show
the hidden files (.xinitrc , .vimrc, etc) when
using as Root??
ls *
ls | grep -v ^.
sudo -u nobody ls
find . -name [abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ]*
-maxdepth 1
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 07:07:55PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
On 7/28/08, Jesus Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can I make ls to NOT show
the hidden files (.xinitrc , .vimrc, etc) when
using as Root??
ls *
ls | grep -v ^.
You need to escape the dot... e.g. grep -v ^\\\.
sudo -u
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 01:16:22AM +0200, Martin Toft wrote:
You need to escape the dot... e.g. grep -v ^\\\.
Two backslashes is enough. My attempt at being a smart ass failed :-)
Greetings. I'm setting up ftp access* for a number of users to a
directory structure like this (assume / is an alias for the top of the
tree):
Username directory perms
user1/ rw
user2/projects r
user3/projects rw
user4/ r
The FAQ
On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 02:52:50PM -0700, David Newman wrote:
Greetings. I'm setting up ftp access* for a number of users to a directory
structure like this (assume / is an alias for the top of the tree):
Username directory perms
user1/ rw
user2
The system
is VERY much stripped down to the absolute necessary files only.
Then it's no longer OpenBSD
It can be discussed if an OS where I delete certain files cannot be
called by its original name anymore.
Anyway, I found that cron needs /etc/login.conf though that file is not
mentioned
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 01:26:47PM +0200, Torsten wrote:
The system is VERY much stripped down to the absolute necessary files
only.
Then it's no longer OpenBSD
It can be discussed if an OS where I delete certain files cannot be called
by its original name anymore.
Anyway, I found that
Torsten [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anyway, I found that cron needs /etc/login.conf though that file is
not mentioned in any documentation.
That's odd. On my machines 'man login.conf' gives me a rather
informative man page.
On OpenBSD, to find something that is in fact not at all documented
On 2008/04/28 13:26, Torsten wrote:
The system is VERY much stripped down to the absolute necessary files
only.
Then it's no longer OpenBSD
It can be discussed if an OS where I delete certain files cannot be
called by its original name anymore.
This has been done to death in the
Are you serious? You break things by removing an essential, documented
file and then complain?
It's obvious that I must be dumb. I wasn't smart enough to find out that
running a program by schedule (which cron does) _must_ have something to
do with the _login_ process, which login.conf is
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 03:17:34PM +0200, Torsten wrote:
Are you serious? You break things by removing an essential, documented
file and then complain?
It's obvious that I must be dumb. I wasn't smart enough to find out that
running a program by schedule (which cron does) _must_ have
If you start breaking stuff by removing files without the knowledge
how things work, you should expect harsh treatment from this list.
What's next, sombody complaining he cannot login because he removed
the passwd file?
Without any irony: I'm sorry if I didn't make things clear enough! The
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 03:17:34PM +0200, Torsten wrote:
Are you serious? You break things by removing an essential, documented
file and then complain?
It's obvious that I must be dumb. I wasn't smart enough to find out that
running a program by schedule (which cron does) _must_ have
Yes, it is *totally* obvious if you actually know what you're doing.
Well, I didn't say I know exactly what I'm doing. If everybody always
knew exactly what they're doing, this ML would be obsolete, wouldn't it?
Thanks a lot for your explanations (no irony! I've learned from it!)!!!
That
Torsten wrote on Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 04:42:09PM +0200:
If everybody always knew exactly what they're doing,
this ML would be obsolete, wouldn't it?
No. Knowledge does not obsolete communication.
Quite to the contrary, knowledge helps communication.
Why would you read this ML if not to help
* * * * root /bin/sh -c echo DEBUGMARKER/tmp/console
---
I have an entry for root in /etc/passwd (and master.passwd respectively).
Nevertheless, when cron starts, I get this:
---
# /usr/sbin/cron -n -x sch
debug flags enabled: sch
parts from OpenBSD, so it's
not exactly on-topic here. You can do a lot more to track down the
problem yourself...
The problem seems to be: setusercontext failed for root
Why is this so
Some suggestions:
1. ktrace(1)/kdump(1)
2. gdb(1).
3. Compare one/both of the above with a working system.
4
Should there not be an option to specify apache root directory for phpxs,
or did I miss it? Looked at the code, but it's not clear where phpxs is
getting the directory from.
Lee
I've been using root on raid for some years, and am using a -current system
from March 22.
I've been unable to boot recently built kernels unless I use boot -a and
select device raid0a manually. My older kernel works fine.
With new kernels, booting -s I get:
# mount
root_device
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 06:10:48PM -0400, I made a typo:
# mount /dev/raidoa /mnt
D'oh! Typin' stuff by hand, rather than pasting directly.
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 06:10:48PM -0400, Josh Grosse wrote:
I've been using root on raid for some years, and am using a -current system
from March 22.
I've been unable to boot recently built kernels unless I use boot -a and
select device raid0a manually. My older kernel works fine
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 06:51:10PM -0400, Kenneth R Westerback wrote:
This is currently broken (deliberately) as changes are made to the
logic concerning mounting the root disk. There are some more changes
that need to be made before a fix to raidframe can be committed.
Thanks, Ken!
Hi!
I am writing a script that would be nice to be able to run
with only the root partition mounted, and it works fine
except that I find no way to read .gz compressed
files without e.g /usr/bin/zcat.
So my questions are: is there a program in /sbin:/bin
that can decompress .gz compressed files
Raimo Niskanen wrote:
I am writing a script that would be nice to be able to run
with only the root partition mounted, and it works fine
except that I find no way to read .gz compressed
files without e.g /usr/bin/zcat.
You can do it with something like this in single user mode:
# mount /usr
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 02:30:27PM +0100, Han Boetes wrote:
Raimo Niskanen wrote:
I am writing a script that would be nice to be able to run
with only the root partition mounted, and it works fine
except that I find no way to read .gz compressed
files without e.g /usr/bin/zcat.
You can
On Feb 18, 2008 10:17 PM, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not just yet!
You can boot of something non-softraid and do the rest on softraid.
This will be a feature I will work on once I have the initial 3
disciplines ready and we can handle foreign metadata. Then I'll work on
Enabled are RAID 0 and RAID 1. RAID 0 is for all intents and purposes
good to go. RAID 1 misses rebuilds (hi henning!) at this moment.
Crypto is being evaluated to ensure the crypto is strong enough to be
trusted. It will remain disabled until that evaluation is complete.
More on that one
like bootable root on raid1 - no
pressures from me though! :)
--
http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk
This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity.
-- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation.
Securing an environment of Windows platforms
501 - 600 of 844 matches
Mail list logo
